Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Competition Commission v Irvin & Johnson Ltd and Another (CR198Oct18) [2020] ZACT 103 (4 September 2020)
The Tribunal dismissed a market-allocation complaint, finding the beef-processing agreements were a commercial manufacturing arrangement, not a section 4(1)(b)(ii) cartel.
Competition Commission v Kalundu Trading (Pty) Ltd (CO080Aug20) [2020] ZACT 58 (14 August 2020)
The Tribunal confirmed a consent agreement admitting a customer-allocation cartel and imposed a R458,979.52 penalty with compliance undertakings.
Competition Commission v ZTE Corporation South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another (CR015Apr16/Exc150Aug17) [2018] ZACT 65; [2018] 1 CPLR 366 (CT) (7 May 2018)
The Tribunal dismissed ZTE SA’s exception to a complaint referral alleging customer allocation under section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act.
Reinforcing Mesh Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission and Others (84/CR/DEC09) [2013] ZACAC 4; 2013] 2 CPLR 455 (CAC) (15 November 2013)
The court held that Vulcania was a party to the cartel agreement, as its conduct demonstrated consensus with other cartel members in price fixing and customer allocation, regardless of its claims of passive participation. The Tribunal was correct in finding Vulcania liable under sections 4(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Competition Act. Regarding penalties, the court interpreted 'preceding financial year' in section 59(2) to mean the last year of economic activity during cartel participation, not strictly the year before the penalty was imposed. This purposive interpretation ensures firms cannot ev…
Source excerpt
Replication Technology Group (Pty) Ltd v Gallo Africa Limited (92/IR/Sep07) [2007] ZACT 99; [2008] 1 CPLR 77 (CT) (10 December 2007)
The Tribunal found that clause 13 of the Sale Agreement is a restraint of trade commonly associated with the sale of a business and is limited in both duration and scope. The restraint does not exclude RTG from the market entirely and is commercially justified to protect the purchaser's investment and goodwill. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from Nedschroef, noting that the restraint here is not a hard-core market division but a standard commercial term. The evidence presented by RTG was found to be unreliable and tainted by dishonesty. The Tribunal concluded that there is no evi…
Source excerpt
Explore more
